Opinion
2023-L-116
12-29-2023
STATE OF OHIO, CITY OF PAINESVILLE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GRIFFITH ALEXANDER RUTHERFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Joseph Hada, Painesville City Prosecutor (For Plaintiff-Appellee). Griffith Alexander Rutherford, pro se (Defendant-Appellant).
Criminal Appeal from the Painesville Municipal Court Trial Court No. 2023 TRD 03614
Joseph Hada, Painesville City Prosecutor (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Griffith Alexander Rutherford, pro se (Defendant-Appellant).
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.
{¶1} On December 11, 2023, appellant, pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's October 16, 2023 sentencing entry. A timely notice was due no later than November 15, 2023, which was not a holiday or weekend. The appeal is untimely by 26 days.
{¶2} "* * * [A] party who wishes to appeal from an order that is final upon its entry shall file the notice of appeal required by App.R. 3 within 30 days of that entry." App.R. 4(A)(1).
{¶3} "(1) After the expiration of the thirty day period provided by App.R. 4(A) for the filing of a notice of appeal as of right, an appeal may be taken by a defendant with leave of the court to which the appeal is taken in the following classes of cases:
{¶4} "(a) Criminal proceedings; * * *
{¶5} "(2) A motion for leave to appeal shall be filed with the court of appeals and shall set forth the reasons for the failure of the appellant to perfect an appeal as of right. * * *." App.R. 5(A).
{¶6} Appellant has neither complied with the thirty-day rule set forth in App.R. 4(A)(1) nor sought leave to appeal under App.R. 5(A). Thus, this court is without jurisdiction to consider his appeal. Appellant has a remedy of filing an untimely criminal appeal under App.R. 5(A).
{¶7} Appeal dismissed, sua sponte, as untimely.
MATT LYNCH, J, EUGENE A LUCCI, J, concur